Fathers’ Rights are everyone’s concern, a family concern if you care about a son, brother, lover or a dad.

Recently we’ve posted a feature regarding the court ratified censorship of civil rights advocate, Dr. Leon Koziol, after exposing vast corruption in our nation’s divorce and family courts. As part of a broader network of parental advocates seeking overdue reforms and shared parenting, we need your personal and financial support to continue. Please share this post and promote our cause. Leon can be reached directly at (315) 796-4000.

Here is an excerpt from a brief that Leon filed recently with a federal appeals court in Manhattan. It helps explain why our children are being alienated and influenced to respect lawyers, strangers, social workers,even street thugs more than their own moms and dads, why violent crime, drug abuse, teen pregnancies and productivity declines can be traced to the seizures of traditional parental authority in these courts:

“While our federal government asserts itself around the globe to advance human rights, its military is returning to divorce and family courts which exploit children for profit. Public safety officers, such as our responders on 9-11, are being hauled into the same courts and subjected to discrimination on account of their gender or line of duty. Many are alienated from their children, committed to debtor prisons or oppressed as inferior parents to feed a trillion dollar industry.

It is a highly protected industry orchestrated under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act, 42 USC section 651 et. seq. States are rewarded by the number and size of “child support” orders manufactured by their courts. Superior and inferior custody classifications are essential to these money transfers and mandated by federal statute even when parents with near equal incomes and childrearing periods set up contrary agreements, see i.e. Bast v Rossoff, 91 NY2d 723 (1998).

Accordingly support judges have been rendered inherently biased against all those classified under the inferior “non-custodial” label with or without justification. Such classifications are arbitrary, stigmatizing and institutional in countless cases, requiring otherwise cooperative parents to compete over their children.

Their infringement of a fundamental right to parent one’s offspring is easily replaced by childrearing plans and orders which retain more family oriented labels such as mother, father and parent, see i.e. Webster v Ryan, 729 NYS2d 315 (Albany Fam. Ct. 2001) at fn. 1(veteran family judge declaring “custody” and “visitation” to be offensive terms in an antiquated system which brings out the worst in parents when children need their best).

However such less intrusive custody substitutes are foreclosed by the blanket classifications and marginalized by overburdened courts committed to the funding scheme. Over time, such injustices have reached constitutional dimension while ever elusive, utopian and overbroad child rearing standards displace parental discretion without compelling state interest contrary to a right declared by the Supreme Court to be the “oldest liberty interest” protected by our Constitution, Troxel v Granville, 530 US 57 (2000)(prolonged custody case can itself violate parental rights), Parham v JR, 442 US 548 (1979)(fit parents presumed to act in their children’s best interests).

A full range of constitutional rights is easily trampled under principles of equity, or the power seized by family judges to “father” our children, see often cited Finlay v Finlay, 240 NY 429 (1925)(“paternal jurisdiction” derived from feudal common law). In plain terms, the Constitution is being ignored because the custody scheme is lucrative for those who depend upon family controversy for their livelihood. It is being facilitated by judges charged with the highest duty of safeguarding such rights, Federalist Paper No. 78; Marbury v Madison, 5 US 137 (1803).

Support inequities triggered by this scheme (child support standards act) are typically countered with custody tactics to result in untold harm to our children, i.e. Pearce v Longo, 766 F.Supp.2d 367 (NDNY 2011)($2 million city liability for police investigator committing murder-suicide with ex-spouse after exiting support court leaving children without parents). In his highly researched study, Is There Really a Fatherhood Crisis, Professor Stephen Baskerville places the blame on government: “What many are led to believe is a social problem may in reality be an exercise of power by the state,” Independence Review, vol VIII, n 4, Spring 2004, at pp 485-486.

Unsuspecting litigants are also exploited by an expanding bureaucracy under Title IV-D to finance welfare costs created by unrelated and irresponsible parents. The ones properly devoted to their children therefore shoulder an unjust burden merely because they reside separately from their partners. These support judges engage in highly abused fictions such as “imputed income” to raise obligations beyond realistic capacities.

There is no express provision for shared parenting under the federal entitlement statute, and the regulatory scheme has replaced the child’s needs with “way of life” standards to elevate support even further. It has removed critical discretion from proper decision makers with outcomes that shock the conscience, see fn 3 and 4.

The “band plays on” in our nation’s family courts because civil rights attorneys and parental advocates such as petitioner are subjugated, vilified and punished for their exercise of reform efforts otherwise protected under the American Constitution. Meanwhile, gay, lesbian and trans-gender parents, soon to be victimized by this same lucrative system, have achieved far greater strides in equality with repeat court actions than fathers have over a century of discrimination.”

And here is a re-production of our feature post this past week in case you missed it.

Okay so we’re not Breitbart or Infowars, we’re just an expanding blog site known as Leon Koziol.com dedicated to parental rights. That puts us with mainstream social media. As Chief Justice John Roberts declared in Snyder v Phelps, speech and press must be “robust” in any self-governing nation.

But we weren’t picketing against gay military as they were in that case. We were promoting all military who return from foreign wars only to experience more oppression in divorce and family courts. That made our third branch of government the subject of our public criticisms.

Today more than ever, we are victims of a powerful bureaucracy seeking to control every facet of our liberties. Families are the last bastion. Accordingly the people rely on secondary media for information and protection. It may be our final frontier before the machines take over.

When major media is censored, they resort to our courts for protection as they should. These forums were created by the people to be the primary guardians of our constitutional rights. But what if the courts are the ones doing the censoring? Where do those victims go for protection?

Welcome to Leon Koziol.com, the most court-censored blog site in America. It started innocently enough, a loving dad and attorney seeking to spend more time with his daughters. He went against his profession for turning our children into a trillion dollar industry.

The Times, USA Today, Chicago Tribune, Fox News, NBC, ABC, CBS and CNN are some of the major media seeking relief in our courts whenever they are censored. Their publishers, editors and reporters are never seized of their children, livelihoods and homes as a punishment.

Secondary media are not so fortunate. They lack real influence. But what we do have is an army of free service providers so the big guys can have something worth reporting. Here, because the courts were targeted, we became the most censored news site in America. Now for some proof:

• On May 22, 2013 at a closed hearing, ethics lawyers for the Committee on Professional Standards declared to a court panel that they would oppose reinstatement of Leon’s law license as long as he continued his public criticisms of judges. None was specified or prosecuted while “anonymous” complaints on other subjects were;

• On January 9, 2008, Leon argued his first appeal challenging a lucrative system of custody classifications which forced parents to fight over their offspring. It was before a court which also appointed ethics committees. One member was his ex-spouse’s divorce lawyer. On the same day, an ethics prosecution was opened for the very first time against Leon after more than two decades of unblemished practice;

• On October 8, 2008, a divorce judge ruled that Leon’s support obligations under that challenged custody law were proper under Title IV-D (Child Support Standards Act). That meant that the judges and lawyers who disrupted the parents’ 2006 agreements did so for no good reason other than lucrative parental conflict. A violation was nonetheless filed to cause another basis for suspending Leon’s law license. Those details are also omitted here due to the gag order.

This is only a small sampling of Leon’s ordeal and punishments for protecting fellow parents (and others who cannot be mentioned here due to the gag order). None of it has ever been disproved or even denied, and this is not the first time Leon sacrificed himself for the people and their rights under the First Amendment.

As chief (corporation) counsel for an upstate New York city, he gave up his post and successfully sued a mayor in federal court for a gag order on public employees. You can look it up at Koziol v Hanna, 107 F. Supp.2d 170 (NDNY 2000)(supported by federal appeals court in Manhattan). On October 9, 2015, the same federal court issued an anti-filing order against Leon.

We continue to fight this battle on principle and for those who cannot be mentioned here. Leon is also fighting for parents, families and children everywhere. But he has been deprived his livelihood for more than six years while a local lawyer convicted of tax fraud on $2 million in client income was never denied his law license even while serving time in prison. We therefore ask you to support us with a donation and anything else you can do.